the people of iowa overcoming adversity. charlene church of cedar rapids lost everything in the flooding. she had 6 feet of water in her house, and this was a total loss. .

[applause] charlene and city are with us today. will you join me in recognizing them here in the chamber. [applause] what have we learned from these results into iowans? we learned that the spirit of iowans is not broken regardless

of the and adversity we face. as we enter a new decade, a part in the session, and crept into budget, we have some fundamental choices in spite of some real challenges which remain. will we move this date forward by reforming and reorganizing state government? will we continue to be a leader in renewable energy and green job creation and stay on the path to economic recovery? will we continue to make investments in our kids by expanding access to health care and adequate funding for early childhood education and education at all levels? will we fight for the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states military? finally, will we finish our work and overcome the devastations of from the floods and tornadoes and rebuild a

stronger, greener, more sustainable state tax [applause] -- sustainable state? [applause] i believe that history teaches us time and time again that the iowa way, the american way is that we are faced with great diversity and a great challenge, we meet them with bold, decisive action. this is no time for fear, for partisanship, and inaction, instead, let's finish what we started, unafraid of tomorrow, and inspired by its possibilities. i will do my part and i look forward to working with the house and senate leadership and all the members and i know that together, we will have a successful session. good luck in the days ahead and look forward to working with each and everyone of you. may god bless the great state of

ottawa. let's embrace this future, making this iowa century with an unwavering faith that our best days are ahead of us. thank you and god bless. [applause] thank you. thank you. like you. thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, south carolina's

attorney general talks about possible effect on states. and on this morning's "washington journal," topics include irs regulation, financial market oversight, and health care. "washington journal begins at the top of the hour at 7:00 eastern. president barack obama will be at the capitol this afternoon to attend a jobs summit with house democrats. live coverage begins at 4: 45 eastern. later today on c-span 2, we will produce a debate with the republican candidates for governor is -- governor of texas. the incumbent.cx governor will e involved. live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern. a group of state attorneys general said they may file a lawsuit of for a particular provision in the senate version of a health-care legislation. henry mcmaster of south carolina

is part of the effort. he talked about the constitutionality of the health care bill at the national press club. this is about one hour. i am a washington correspondent for work-force management which is a magazine. ñri am sure of that national nes national press club news makers committee. i am coming near the end of my tenure. in three days, the new chair is with us today. he is a member of the club. he will be the newsmakers share for 2010. he writes for the in the fat

tuesday group and is a reporter for age. -- today we will address the health care reform bill that is the subject of negotiations right now between the house and senate. we're pleased to welcome to the national press club south carolina attorney general henry mcmaster. he is one of 13 state attorneys general to cite a recent letter to senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker nancy pelosi protesting a provision of the health care bill that obligates the federal government to pick up the entire cost of medicaid expansion and nebraska. critics call at the courthouse kurt kickback, designed to secure the votes of senator ben

nelson for the health care bill. mr. mcmaster will explain why he and the other state attorneys general believe that the agreement is unconstitutional. mr. mcmaster has prosecuted white-collar criminals, internet predators, and drug traffickers. today, he weighs into another controversy in a potentially dangerous area, health care. >> thank you. those other prosecutions are not controversial. almost everyone is in favor of locking up drugñi traffickers ad the internet predators. this has achieved some cumbersome and run the country and i would be glad to enter any questions ever anybody has about it. it is a very straightforward thing. there are now 15 attorneys general, two democrats and 13 republicans who have joined on

this issue concerning the so- there are criticisms in the bill and this is not part of this letter and this effort by the bill itself. some in this group and otherwise not participating so far may join together or do something individually about other matters concerning this bill if it becomes law. the is where we stand today. -- that is where we stand today. i can't answer your questions if you have them. when the bill was passed in the senate, there was great fanfare and conversation about senator ben nelson's participation. as you know, his was the 60 of a vote for cloture.

it was the critical 60 the vote to allow the bill to move forward. at the time,ñi there was no controversy at all -- no misunderstanding about his motivation. no one suggested that the so- called cornhusker kickback was put into the bill other than to achieve his boat. -- vote. there are many reasons for putting things into bills. to achieve somebody's vote on a bill like this that is national in scope is not one that is recognized by the constitution, the case law on the constitution as we see it. as the bill passed under those circumstances, there were a number of laws that had questions about it. on december 21 or thereabouts,

received a telephone call from senator lindsey graham who said that the letter was on the way from him asking me as attorney general of south carolina to look into this question of the constitutionality of this particular provision per i began doing that and began seeking input from my fellow attorneys general around the country. the first two to offer support in an effort were greg abbott of of texas and the the attorney general of washington state. we've made a draft of a letter that was then re-drafted and edited and the product of that is the one dated december 30 which we addressed to speaker nancy pelosi and senator harry reid, outlining our reasons why

we believe that particular provision is unconstitutional. in a nutshell, what it boils down to is this -- the constitution is very broad in giving spending power to the congress. the spending power of the congress is not unlimited. there must be limits and the limit is that the spending can be arbitrary or capricious, is what the case law says britt a bill like this that would affect every state, that would involve texas and benefits for every state, maybe not the same level, but would involve every state, except for the state of nebraska begs the question of why is nebraska being treated differently. if there is a reason for treating nebraska differently, where 49 states are buried their share of the medicaid expansion

and indirectly bearing in nebraska's share of the expansion, then there has to be reason for it. the only reason that has been positive by anyone is that what was necessary to get ben nelson paused vote. c5çthat is not a reason that is recognized by the constitution as legitimate. if there had been a distinction made because of the volume of potential medicare recipients or poverty level or something involving health care in nebraska that was different, then that would be a different story on the constitutionality. that is what many states in the national legislation are not alter the say because there are distinctions and many times there is horse trading that goes on as we all know. there's always a reason given buried there is no reason given here except for the one i have recited and that is one we see as unconstitutional and is

likely seen as many as a symbol of the excess as of the culture of corruption and excessive spending and fiscal irresponsibility in the congress. that is not addressed in this letter. what this letter addresses is the constitutionality of that one provision after we wrote the letter, the next day which was thursday, december 31, i received a telephone call from senator gramm saying that he had received a telephone call from senator ben nelson asking him to call the dogs of. senator graham suggested to senator nelson that he call me. he called me and asked what he could do to assure us that there would not be constitutional problems. i told him that what would satisfy this group, which has now grown to 15, is to take the provision out of the bill and

don't let it become law. he explained that either that would happen or that the same provision would be provided for every state. if the same provision is provided for every state, that does not pose a constitutional problem that the attorneys general would be concerned of in protecting their state but would raise other questions for fiscal responsibility and budgetary questions and all of those kinds of questions that are rampant right now in the current budget crisis. that is where we left it. i was very interested. he said that like ronald reagan, trust but verify. that is how we left it for it i have not heard from him since december 31. after that, i asked drew

edmondson, a democrat in oklahoma, if he would join with me to go to the national association of attorneys general and as we often do, send a letter asking other people to participate if they would like. that was sent out about one week ago. we have a number of ag's, republicans and democrats were quite interested. once on and on and others were interested in signing of the wanted to change one word or one sentence or they have editorial comments on the letter. we ran out of time and we now have 15. there are others who are interested in the question. there are others who are interested in other questions, as well. probably the most prominent is the individual mandate which i believe and others believe but it is not the subject here, we

believe that is constitutionally suspect, as well. it is the 10th amendment question. congress has power to spend. congress has power to tax. the individual mandate is neither of those great progress has the power to regulate interstate commerce but this is not something that is not interested comers. this requirement in forces people to buy something they do not have. that is going off the scale in the question of constitutional law. i believe and some other ag's believe that that is also a highly suspect and there may be some lawsuit brought in about that. it depends what is signed by president obama and what comes out of the senate. they do not take those provisions out, if they are unconstitutional, and i want to

state clearly that we are not challenging the other aspects, the policy aspects of the bill. that is not the focus of this group of attorney generals, there are a number of other questions that need to be answered and the other ag's and maybe myself who would be interested in pursuing remedies there, but the question is, which court do you go into text for a state, generally speaking, and there are some exceptions and these are the sorts of things that will be finalized through research. a state can sue a state only in the original jurisdiction of the u.s. supreme court. there has only been 139 cases to be accepted by the u.s. supreme court in their original jurisdictions since the beginning of the country. mine was on a case where south

carolina was so ignored carolina over the water. t and the court except that as the 138 case in a rigid -- its original jurisdiction. that was not an appeal as a trial and all that. it is an original jurisdiction . if an individual since the federal government or if an individual pieces and officer of the government, that is someone who would be involved in providing these benefits for implementing the program, that to be done in any u.s. district court. it would probably the same for the state of south carolina or any other state suing someone like a federal officer in their official capacity, who would be involved in implementing this program could be done in any

district court in the united states. it is not unusual for attorneys general to join together on an issue. this is the first one since i have been attorney general. i have been here for over seven years. does not unusual for us to join together through amicus briefs, on letters, and other things, to voice opinions and concerns on proposed legislation, regulations, either to support or oppose and even to bring lawsuits in connection with each other. there are plenty of opportunities. there are different ways that a case concerning this and other provisions could be brought to the courts. of the 15 who are participating in this effort at this time, we would prefer to have the

offending provisions taken out of the bill or not put into law and that would solve these problems with us. i think i have covered it all. i would be glad to try to answer any questions anybody has. >> please identify yourself and your organization when you ask a question. >> i represent get you a new service -- i represent gannett news service. i have your letter here. >> the last two are from oklahoma and american samoa and i don't remember her name. she is a democrat. >> i understand your concern

about the legality of this provision. >> correct. >> let me ask a political decision since you're running for governor, do you support the health care bill as it is written? >> no. that is not a part of this effort of these 15 attorneys general. as a separate question. >> i would like to get more details on your conversation with center in nelson burton. >> how long did it last? >> about 10 minutes. >> how was it? >> very cordial. >> you have indicated that you

now that the motivation for adding this provision to the bill is may be shifting on the side of the democrats. did you directly ask him whether this provision was added to get your vote? did you directly asking the question? >> i did not ask him that. he presented that first part ot. he said that was a marker put in by the leadership what he had hoped for was that every state would have the option to have not what nebraska got. >> do you think it is fair or unfair. -- did he think it was fair or unfair and was a good bet your challenge? >> he did not give any indication as to whether he thought the challenge would be

successful or not. he explained that he had not asked for the provision and that he was going to fix it. he would hope and he had intended for every state to have the same benefits that nebraska got but the only provision that was put in was the one for nebraska. >> you were talking about the potentially troublesome provisions like the mandate. can you flesh that out? >> the individual mandate requiressóñ everyone to buy heah insurance.

the question becomes, how does the united states congress have the authority to require an individual to buy health insurance or anything else? there is no provision for that in the constitution or in the constitutional law as far as i know. others agree because the congress has the power to tax and has the power to spend as you know, the constitution provides certain things that the federal government can do and the 10th amendment says the states do everything else. this is something that would fall into that latter category if it falls there. it really does not fall into the authority of the federal government. the federal government can tax and can spend an can regulate army, navy, air force, marines, other things.

it can regulate interstate commerce but this is not a matter of interstate commerce. if this involved traffic flow or something like that where that was an activity being conducted in the state commerce, then that would be a different question. this is an instance where the federal government is requiring an individual to buy insurance that they may not want and may not need and may not be able to afford. that is taking the federal government into a completely new area. senator orrin hatch and two other gentleman wrote a piece for "the wall street journal" that goes into that. i agree with them. one of them was at a meeting i attended earlier and he is very well informed. there is a lot of law that

agrees with what they had in that. >> if the compromise bill that comes out does not contain this provision, you would be ok with that? >> which provision? >> the nebraska provision. >> that would end the effort that is signified by this letter. i am not saying that would end all levers that maybe signified by additional letters or by letters of all but by lawsuits either by states or by individuals. >> what would you say to people who would say that mcmaster is bringing this up as a political issue and is trying to score political points, he is running for governor. you sent that senator lindsey graham is the one who initiated the call to you. both him and senator demint sent to the letter.

-- sent you the letter . >> i don't know i and complicity in there's or mine. [laughter] >> they are the ones who initiated it. >> the letter formalized are thinking but there are a number of ag's and other scholars and observers and news people run the country who are raising questions about the dñconstitutionality of various parts of this from the very beginning. when i received that letter, we win into additional discussion and conversations and began the calls to the other attorneys general to see a if they sought the way i saw it there were three of us at the beginning and recalled some others. we ended up with a group of 13 at that time and then we went into the discussion of what we

should do and write a letter and what should it say and the letter went through a good bit of work. if you read it, i think you will see it is not a provocative letter. it is a legal document for it stays in delaying of the attorney general speaking of a legal issue -- it stays in the oane of an attorney general speaking of a legal issue. we can barely keep the lights on and my state and here comes another unfunded mandate everywhere except nebraska and we are funding nebraska's progress part . that is clearly within the authority of the -- of an attorney general to question. we question that. why did this group go after this instead of focus on others. it is because this was the most heralded an egregious

example of a culture of corruption and texas that has taken deep root in washington. this is a serious threat. is a very serious problem. sometimes the states need to rein washington in. that is what we are attempting to do. yes, sir reporte. >> is this provision illegal or unconstitutional or both? if it is unconstitutional, what is this a degree in the constitution that tells congress how it can go about getting agreement legislation? >> there is nothing that says how to go about getting agreement on legislation in the constitution because tuition, as concerns this -- you have due process, you have

the welfare clause, all these things have to be considered carefully. it is the case law that provides the details for the constitution allows the congress to spend money for the general welfare. the question comes up, what is general welfare? is that anything or is there limits? cases have defined by saying there is a limit. they say that the spending power of the congress is very broad but it is not unlimited spending can be conducted, providing it is for a reason and that is as being arbitrary or capricious. a bill that provides for health care services or spending around the country and says to spend --

to send spent -- $10 million to eight -- an individual, would likely be found unconstitutional. that is the price that we say here -- that is the precise thing we say here. there i reason that nebraska goa special deal was because harry reid and the senate democrats needed his vote for cloture and for passage of the bill. that is an arbitrary or capricious reasons. it is unrelated to the rest of the bill and treats the states differently. it treats the other states unfairly, unjustly, and that is recognized in the constitution. >> is also an illegal bribe? >> it depends on your block. arnold schwarzenegger says if it were done in sacramento, it would be.

in south carolina, it would probably not be. i say probably. the law is unclear but it could be if it took place in south carolina. it is undecided whether it would be or is not. our law is fairly specific on a person who was bribe receiving something of value. i cannot predict how the courts would react if this had taken place in south carolina and there were allegations that he is getting something from nebraska. is this getting something for himself? there have been instances where people in south carolina have suggested that if you will vote for this particular piece of legislation, we will send money to your campaign account. is that a bribe?

probably so, probably not, we don't know. it's as if you will vote for a piece of legislation, we'll give you $1,000 brick we know that as a bribe. people went to jail in the early 1990's in a federal prosecution. a lot of that was less than $1,000 and that is why we have laws that are very strict on desperate in south carolina, would this be a state crime? it is difficult to say. it would be highly regarded as completely wrong. whether it is illegal or criminal, it would be completely wrong. i have been researched law in california to see what reference to governor schwarzenegger was making. -- i have not research belote in california to see what reference governor schwarzenegger was making. >> you said you started with one

and two and then party and now you are 15. are you heading toward all attorneys general in all states to gather? -- together? >> it for it were to get sorted out in court, it would be sorted out by the court. all you need is one person to bring a case to get it started out whether it is an individual or an attorney general bring it on behalf of the state or an individual. if someone filed such a lawsuit, i would expect there would be a lot of amicus briefs and support around the country. i don't know how many other people would join us. there may be more. i don't know that. >> have you contacted others?

>> yes. >> how far will you go with it. you're running for governor so if you become governor, will use to be involved in this particular subject? >> i will be very much interested in this subject because it is an unfunded mandate on the southe state of h carolina. we have had to slash our budget. we don't have a deficit spending in the south carolina. the budget -- the constitution does not allow it. when the legislature is not in session, the budget and control board makes cut across the board. we have had cuts of over 40%. i am concerned about it now.

if elected, as governor and from that position, i will still be concerned about it. >> the president has amassed a body of 10 governors, five from each party, what is your take on that, to help solve all the murders the problems? -- to help sell all the emergency problems? >> with the health care bill? ">> know what the problems that face the country. >> it is good to have help from whatever source but i am not familiar with what you're referring to. there was another question -- i don't think that after your whole question. we have 15 now. if we -- and there may be others

that joined up -- if we were to file something, there is an open invitation, as there always is, to anyone who wants to express their views either pro or con to file an amicus brief. >the attorney general oklahoma and i through the national association of attorneys general sent out a letter about one week ago inviting others to participate. the attorney general of american samoa signed on to the letter as written. there were other republicans and democrats who were interested but wanted to edit the letter further. some major and some are minor. we were running out of time to keep tinkering with the letter. we settled on the one that we had. as time ran out, that was the

end of that window. anyone can file an amicus brief. and we often do on cases. >> have you gotten any response from senator harry reid or speaker nancy pelosi and did you make any effort to meet with them while you are here and if not why not? >> i wrote this letter which as the signatures of 13 attorneys general on it. we have not received, at least i have not received a response. i know of no response that any of the others have received i do not expect to receive one at this point. this letter is dated december 30. >> why did you make an effort to meet with them while you were up here? >> i do not believe my meeting with them could produce fruit.

if they had responded to the letter and as for a meeting, i would have been most happy to meet with them and anyone else. it is their turn. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. i'm a member of the press club and not a reporter. i own public-relations firm in washington, d.c. and a former staffer for senator ben nelson you said earlier that centre nelson told you that he had dug ask for the provision in the bill. a few moments ago, you said he took credit for the provision. which state and do you believe to be correct? >> both. as i recall, and i'm fairly confident that he said he didn't ask for that to be in there. he preferred a similar provision to for all states.

he only got it for nebraska. he did not ask for nebraska to be singled out. he was responsible for an address to getting a but he did not ask that nebraska's only get it. do you always say again? >> no, you said earlier that he did not ask for nebraska but he is taking credit for it. >> that's correct. the associated press in california issued a report showing that governor schwarzenegger himself engaged in the exact same activity at the state level that he is complaining about the federal level. are you aware of that? would you file a similar suit against the governor of california if he was doing the same thing? >> oh, a pesky questions. [laughter]

our focus is on the state of south carolina and this bill as written when it left the senate, imposes a burden, a fiscal burden on the people of south carolina for the benefit of another state. does the breast only that was accepted. the other -- it was nebraska that was only excepted, that is what we think is unconstitutional. i want to be sure we have this straight because you seem to be interested. he said he did not ask for this provision. what he wanted was a similar one for every state across the board or an opt in and opt out for all the states. but the only one that was included in the bill, the only state was nebraska apparent that is what he said. >> i only brought up governor schwarzenegger because you did. thank you for indulging i have

another. pesky questions. . in october "the wall street journal" had very negative comments about your ethics having to do with no bid contracts for friends who donated $60,000 in contributions to your campaign. is that the carolina kickback? >> that is a pesky questions, you are right [laughter] >> thank you again for indulging may. e. >> i bring lawsuits for the state against businesses very rarely.

we are importuned by attorneys all time and we bring them very rarely. the one against eli lilly was one that had to be brought. the agreement that i used to hire outside counsel as was pointed out in my letter to the editor in response to the uninformed to, not completely informed editorial by the journal pointed out that in my state, i have eight civil attorneys. most of them are doing criminal work. a case of this magnitude is too big. the agreement that i used to hire attorneys has been selected as the model for tort reform burbs for hiring outside counsel in all the states. many of the other states have adopted the ones that we use. it is a good agreement. there's nothing wrong with it. in this case, it produced a very important results for the state

of south carolina. >> i agree with you on that. "the wall street journal" talk about campaign kickbacks in after they were hired. >> there were no campaign kickbacks. there were attorneys that gave money to my campaigns and the attorneys representing the defendant, eli lilly, given equal amount to my campaigns. a judge ruled on that question and ruled that there was no ethical violation at all. eli lilly brought up in the case before we had the $45 million settlement. >> are the other attorneys general but signed on to your letter -- is there a new letter

today or is it the same letter from december 30? >> is there a new letter today? there is no new letter. >> are the 15 attorney general's aware of the situation with the no big insider contracts in south carolina and would they endorse the kind of behavior? >> i already answered that. >> are you also drafting the lawsuit on the side or cancer -- or can you shed some light on the process? where does that effort stands? >> at this point, the attorneys general are doing, i don't know all of them, but some of them are doing additional research to determine and make

determinations about whether a case should be brought -- about which court a case should or should not be brought in if it is necessary to bring the case. there are other observers who were interested, as well. >> to go back to your conversation with senator nelson. did he say or was it your understanding that when he said other states should get the same benefit, if other states got the same benefits, the conclusion seems to be that the federal government would pay for it. that would increase the deficit and not make this new revenue -- revenue-neutral. he said what other states to get the same benefits that nebraska is now getting which is that the

federal government will cover their added cost. is that saying that's what he wants is for the federal government to cover all the costs? >> that is the way he explained to me in the phone call. his precise word that he did not ask for the special treatment, that what he preferred was an opt out, bought in provision for other states -- opt in provision for other states. >> was it your understanding that he was saying that he would like the federal government to cover the entire cost? >> i cannot say that is exactly what he wanted. i don't know whether it was off in or opt out. >> do you have any hope that

this provision will be taken out? you said you did not meet with senator harry reid or speaker nancy pelosi and you do not expect to meet with them. they're the ones making the final decisions of this bill. if that provision stays in the bill and it is signed by president, what do the attorneys general due later that day or the next day? >> if the president signs the bill and the nebraska provision is still in there, what will we do? >> what is the next step? >> we would confer again to determine if, when, and where and under what constitutional approach a lawsuit would be filed. i touched on that little earlier

with the different types of lawsuits that a state can bring in where they must be brought. >> if you come to washington and you do not meet with the two people who make a decision on the bill -- >> there has been much conversation that i have followed in the press only about changes that may be made. >> my conversation with senate toward nelson indicated that any changes made is that he was in favor of changes. i don't know what to expect. >> there are small bills that are often passed late at night and early in the morning when no one is around.

they basically get special tax -- give special pet tax breaks to individuals and individual companies. they are brought on behalf of one senator or one congressman on behalf of a constituent. are you aware of this legislation? there is a tactical name for this kind of legislation but do you know anything about this? have you heard of this? >> yes, there is a name for it and i don't know what it is. >> it has been awhile since i have written about this but there are hundreds of thousands of them passed every year. are each of those leader -- laws unconstitutional because one individual is getting a tax benefit that is paid for by every other american taxpayer? >> bills involving money?

>> my belief is that these bills provide tax relief. it is when a business or individual goes to a member of congress and makes this request and these bills are routinely passed. are all of these bills unconstitutional under the same theory that you have been offering in this case it? >> i don't believe so because they are not part of a national legislative effort or purpose. i would presume, although i have not studied any particular ones. we are concentrating on this one. there should be something -- some reason for it other than to get someone's vote. >> why is providing one individual tax benefit any more a legitimate purpose than

getting 1 senators of vote? >> that is a good question. i would be glad to have someone do some research and try to provide some guidance on that. the thing we have studied at some length is this provision, this corn husker kick back. our conclusions are set out in this letter. i can tell you about that one. >> this particular provision is egregious and that is what prompted this legal examination on your part. the individual mandate has been a around and well known. democratic leaders have been talking about this since they began talking about health care. it has been part of the house bill in previous generations.

how come that did not rise up to the challenge of questions from you? >> this one coming in the fanfare of the 60 of the vote and all that was involved at all the attention focused on it led me and i presume the others as well to conclude that it would be harmful to our state's and that we need to do something. there may be others. we may attack other parts of the bill if it becomes law. it has not become law before. if these things to become law that i would expect there will be numerous challenges, some of which we know nothing about, at this time. could come from anywhere. >> i have a question on behalf of the south carolina of media

-- south carolina media. carolina, ordinary folks? you are talking that this is on behalf of south carolina. what message will the south carolina media give your people? why are you doing this and what benefit will this be for south carolina? >> the benefit the effort will have is that it will save the people of south carolina money. we will not be called upon to bear our own burden for the extension of medicare -- medicaid but also the cost that is associated with nebraska. we believe it is unconstitutional and for that reason, in south carolina, we

can barely keep the lights on with the budget cuts we have had. to have this imposed on us, speaking constioón&ly, not only the burden that we would bear under the bill if it becomes law but also bearing the share of nebraska is something that should be challenged. i have not calculated the amount but there have been various calculations. our budget and south carolina is so tight right now that we simply cannot handle any more. mandates. >> what would they say of it does i go through? >> are you talking about the whole bill or the corn husker provision? i have not calculated that. it has been estimated that the

benefit to nebraska would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and would go out for years, indefinitely. that adds up to a whole lot of money. >> the way your co-op phone conversation ended, did you agree with senator ben nelson to stay in contact? is there an ongoing communication between the two of you? >> we made no agreement to discuss it later. it would certainly be possible. i would love to hear from him as to what progress is being made behind those closed doors. i would like to know. it was a very cordial conversation. he stated his position and i stated my on behalf of the state.

>> if there are no further questions, i want to thank attorney-general mcmasters for joining us today. >> pleasure, thank you. >> thank you for coming to this. as we say at press club gatherings, we are now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> american icons, three original documentaries from cspan, now available] on dvd. did you make a journey through the iconic of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court, go beyond the bill that ropes of public tours

of the white house, america's most famous home, and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital. american icons, a three-disc cd set. handling. it is one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. "washington journal" is next. president barack obama will be at the u.s. today to attend a jobs summit with house democrats spread live coverage begins at 4: 40 5:00 p.m. eastern parent -- 4:45 eastern. we will get an update on the financial inquiry commission today. after that, the urban institute will talk about health